Quench-based magnet sorting at the MEB presented by L. Bottura Workshop on Beam generated heat deposition and quench levels for LHC magnets March 3 rd,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Stimulating a discussion on cavity performance metrics.
Advertisements

1 / 19 M. Gateau CERN – Geneva – CH 14th International Magnetic Measurement Workshop September 2005, Geneva, Switzerland.
REVIEW OF THE CRYOGENIC BY-PASS FOR THE LHC DS COLLIMATORS ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT MODIFICATION, INCLUDING OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PRESENTED BY A. SIEMKO.
What we may gain with the sorting at MEB Presented by L. Bottura for the MEB Session 4 - Magnetic Requirements for Commissioning Divonnix, January 2006.
Andrzej SIEMKO, CERN/AT-MTM Slide 1 14th “Chamonix Workshop”, January 2005 Beam loss induced quench levels A. Siemko and M. Calvi Machine Protection Issues.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Field Quality Working Group-14/12/04 - Stephane Sanfilippo AT-MTM-AS Field Quality measurements at cold. Standard program v.s extended tests. Presented.
Expected Quench Levels of the Machine without Beam: Starting at 7 TeV ? P. Pugnat CERN, Geneva, Switzerland LHC Project Workshop Chamonix XV, Tuesday 24.
Number of Blocks per Pole Diego Arbelaez. Option – Number of Blocks per Pole Required magnetic field tolerance of ~10 -4 For a single gap this can be.
Fk. Bordry AB/PO Ability of the converter s to follow the reference function (static, dynamics) I1 I2 I3 Static part is covered by the static definition.
Beam induced heating assessment on LHC beam screens Arcs + DSs + ITs L. Tavian LBOC, 27 September 2011.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Micro-Resistor Beam.
Workshop 12/04/2006AT/MTM SM18 Test Facility A. Siemko "Workshop on Test Facilities and measurement equipment needed for the LHC exploitation"
Massimo GiovannozziChamonix XV, January Electrical circuits required for the minimum workable LHC during commissioning and first two years.
LLRF ILC GDE Meeting Feb.6,2007 Shin Michizono LLRF - Stability requirements and proposed llrf system - Typical rf perturbations - Achieved stability at.
1 Second LHC Splice Review Copper Stabilizer Continuity Measurement possible QC tool for consolidated splices H. Thiesen 28 November 2011 K. Brodzinski,
HL-LHC Annual Meeting, November 2013HQ Planning – G. Sabbi 1 HQ Status and Plans G. Sabbi High Luminosity LHC Annual Meeting Daresbury, UK, November 11-14,
Partikeldagarna, Göteborg 21 September 2007 LHC: Status and Plans Lyn Evans.
FCC kick-off meeting a summary for magnets L. Bottura
Status of the Rebaselining D. Schulte for the Rebaselining Team D. Schulte, CLIC Rebaselining, October 2013.
PSB dump: proposal of a new design EN – STI technical meeting on Booster dumps Friday 11 May 2012 BE Auditorium Prevessin Alba SARRIÓ MARTÍNEZ.
1 Heat load for a beam loss on the superconducting magnet Yosuke Iwamoto, Toru Ogitsu, Nobuhiro Kimura, Hirokatsu Ohhata, Tatsushi Nakamoto and Akira Yamamoto.
Injection Energy Review D. Schulte. Introduction Will review the injection energy So could answer the following questions: Which injection energy can.
Understanding AC losses for LHC magnets What can we learn about heat exchange? Understanding AC losses Removing heat from the coil –Magnet (temperature)
F. Savary Question 1 A. Magnet design criteria for the prototype and production magnet to be tested before the installation into the tunnel.
L. Serio COPING WITH TRANSIENTS L. SERIO CERN, Geneva (Switzerland)
Held at CERN, 3-4 March 2005 Workshop organised in the frame of the CARE-HHH-AMT network Organisers: R. Assmann, L. Rossi, R. Schmidt & A. Siemko Report.
Cold test of SIS-300 dipole model Sergey Kozub Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Moscow region, Russia.
C.KotnigFCC Design Meeting FCC Beam Screen cooling Claudio Kotnig.
LHC-CC Validity Requirements & Tests LHC Crab Cavity Mini Workshop at CERN; 21. August Remarks on using the LHC as a test bed for R&D equipment.
“WISE” Simulation of optical imperfections in LHC P. Hagen AT/MCS Acknowledgements: Colleagues in AT/MAS, AT/MEL, AT/MTM, AB/ABP CERN, October 2006.
AT/MTM, August 2004 Quench Test Results obtained with The Local Quench Antennas on selected magnets M. Calvi S. Kouzue A. Forrester E. Floch P. Pugnat.
JRA on Development of High Temperature SC Link Motivation Work Packages Partners & resources Amalia Ballarino Esgard open meeting CERN,
2/12/2013 Massimo Giovannozzi - CERN1 Sorting of the LHC magnets and lessons learnt S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi Introduction The LHC in a nutshell The.
Cold powering test results of MBHSP102 Gerard Willering, TE-MSC-TF With thanks to Jerome and Vincent and all others from TF for their contribution.
AT-MAS/SC A. Verweij 21 Mar 2003 Present Status and Trends of Cable Properties and Impact on FQ Workshop on Field Quality Steering of the Dipole Production.
Heat loads and cryogenics L.Tavian, D. Delikaris CERN, Cryogenics Group, Technology Department Accelerators & Technology Sector Friday, October 15, 20101HE-LHC'10.
FCC Week 2015, Washington Cooling the FCC beam screens
Faster ramp rates in main LHC magnets Attilio Milanese 7 Oct Thanks to M. Bajko, L. Bottura, P. Fessia, M. Modena, E. Todesco, D. Tommasini, A. Verweij,
FLS2010 Workshop, Stanford, March 1-5, 2010 Florian Loehl (Cornell University) Commissioning of the High Current ERL Injector at Cornell Florian Loehl.
E. Todesco MAGNET (RE)Training E. Todesco Magnets, Superconductors and Cryostats Group Technology Department, CERN LHC risk review, 5 th March 2009 Acknowledgements:
HWC with nQPS Splice Monitoring Zinur Charifoulline & Bob Flora Real Time (~10 sec) BUS Voltage Energy Extraction Trip 300 µV threshold on Un-bypassed.
E. Todesco ENERGY OF THE LHC AFTER LONG SHUTDOWN 1 ( ) C. Lorin, E. Todesco and M. Bajko CERN, Geneva Switzerland With relevant inputs from colleagues.
7 th March 2008 Magnet Modelling N. Sammut On behalf of the FIDEL Working Group.
MEB 2004: the lessons learned presented by L. Bottura for the Magnet Evaluation Board Workshop CERNmonix XIV Thursday, January 20 th, 2005.
The HiLumi LHC Design Study (a sub-system of HL-LHC) is co-funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme 7 Capacities Specific Programme,
IR Magnets for Muon Collider Alexander Zlobin and Vadim Kashikhin Muon Collider Physics Workshop, Fermilab November 12, 2009.
Sergio Calatroni TS/MMETS Workshop, Archamps RF Fingers for Secondary Collimators What is that? Constraints for design Choice of materials:
Expected field quality in LHC magnets E. Todesco AT-MAS With contributions of S. Fartoukh, M. Giovannozzi, A. Lombardi, F. Schmidt (beam dynamics) N. Catalan-Lasheras,
Logo area HL LHC IT STRING M. Bajko CERN TE-TM and QXF Review.
CHATS-AS 2011clam1 Integrated analysis of quench propagation in a system of magnetically coupled solenoids CHATS-AS 2011 Claudio Marinucci, Luca Bottura,
The HiLumi LHC Design Study is included in the High Luminosity LHC project and is partly funded by the European Commission within the Framework Programme.
Quench behavior of the main dipole magnets in the LHC By Gerard Willering, TE-MSC On behalf of the MP3-CCC team Acknowledgements TE-MSC, MP3, BE-OP, TE-MPE,
E. Todesco RETRAINING AND DETRAINING IN THE LHC E. Todesco Magnets, Superconductors and Cryostats Group Technology Department, CERN LHC Machine Advisory.
Review of the present non-conformities in view of HL-LHC
LHC Interconnect Simulations and FRESCA Results
MMI^2T limits for magnets, what are they and how where they developed
Economic Operation of Power Systems
Powering the LHC Magnets
FMEA of a CLIQ-based protection of D1
Field model deliverables for sector test and commissioning: when and what? The implementation of an accurate magnetic model will be vital for efficient.
Pierre-Alexandre Thonet
Circuits description and requirements - Closed Session-
UPDATE ON DYNAMIC APERTURE SIMULATIONS
HL LHC WP3 (magnets) TASK 2 ADVANCEMENT
Why do BLMs need to know the Quench Levels?
Machine Protection Issues affecting Beam Commissioning
PANDA solenoid quench calculations
Long term behavior and high-QI test in the MQXFS program
Presentation transcript:

Quench-based magnet sorting at the MEB presented by L. Bottura Workshop on Beam generated heat deposition and quench levels for LHC magnets March 3 rd, 2005 ? ?

Quench classes presently used at MEB  3 and 1/2 classes, based on training and electrical characteristics: Golden (bonus magnets, do not detrain ? preferably use in hot regions) N ramp (9 T)  3 and[electrically sound] Silver-plus (nearly as good as golden magnets ? preferably use in hot regions) N ramp (9 T) > 3 and N ramp (8.75 T)  2and[electrically sound] Silver (normal magnets) N ramp (9 T)  9 and N ramp (8.4 T)  2 during first test or N ramp (9 T)  9 and N ramp (8.4 T)  1 after thermal cycleand [electrically sound] or N ramp (9 T)  9 and N ramp (8.6 T)  2 after thermal cycle Reserve (bound to train/detrain, preferably use in shielded regions) training as defined for G, S+, S, but shows detraining, or high splice resistance or deviation from nominal cable margin at 4.5 K following the definition of A. Siemko, P. Pugnat and E. Floch

Rationale of sorting for optimal performance  Mission: place the magnets so that the highest possible field is reached for LHC operation  A sorting that aims at optimal quench performance is possible if, and only if: we know the perturbation spectrum (measured by the energy and power input to the magnet) locations with highest beam induced loss locations with highest operating temperature and we know the margin to quench (measured by the energy and power margin of the magnet)

Questions on sorting for optimal performance  Two questions must be answered, for this sorting to be effective: Q1: is the energy and power input to the magnet sufficiently known, i.e. what is the worst 10 % of the machine ? Q2: does training, as executed today, give an unambiguous measurement of the energy and power margin of the magnet, i.e. through the cable temperature margin (as we have no other stability data) ?

Cable temperature margin vs. first quench and classes  There is no correlation between the cable temperature margin and the first quench, nor the class  The answer to Q2 is NO  In other terms, there is no reason to sort for optimal performance based on the information we have available today courtesy of M. Pojer

Rationale of sorting for maximum robustness  Mission: place the magnets so that in case of quench the LHC performance at the next ramp is not decreased  A sorting that aims at maximum robustness is possible if, and only if, we know the likelihood to loose performance after a quench (measured by de-training ?) and we know the likelihood to quench in a given tunnel slot

Questions on sorting for maximum robustness  Two questions must be answered, for this sorting to be effective: Q1: is a magnet more likely to quench when placed in a hot tunnel location ? NOTE: this problem is the same as posed to the sorting for optimal performance… Q2: does training, as executed today, give an unambiguous measurement of the detraining potential ? I am missing a clear answer to both questions

The MEB installation algorithm as used today  Logic: form pairs of magnets that compensate deviations of field errors from average in the sector (compensated by the correctors) to minimise the effect of the rms exception rules (by priority): satisfy hardware type constraints (diode, spool) no more than 1 magnet with defective T-sensor per cell, in locations that can be accepted by cryo-control power-R magnets in mid-cell locations geo-MC, geo-SL, geo-SR magnets (with out-of-tolerance geometry) in suitable locations in arc cells (mid-cell, right or left of a MQ) geo-G magnets in DS cells power-G and power-S+ magnets in priority to DS, power-S otherwise not more than 3 magnets in a cell with out-of-tolerance b1 and/or a1 courtesy of S. Fartoukh, power class from A. Siemko References:Proc. of LHC Workshop Chamonix-XIII, pp , 2004 Proc. of EPAC 2004, pp , 2004

Conclusions  should we sort magnets using information from training ?  what are the criteria ? number of quenches to nominal/ultimate training memory after thermal cycle extrapolated temperature margin  can we reliably define performance classes ?  where do they belong ? locations with largest heat load locations with highest temperature